Standup Zone Forum

Stand Up Paddle => Gear Talk => Topic started by: robon on February 06, 2016, 10:31:01 PM

Title: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 06, 2016, 10:31:01 PM
101 surf sports recently did a test of the 2016 SIC 12'6 X 26 and the SB All star 12'6" x 25. Would have been better with some video and timed results, but the comments are interesting. Particularly the upwind performance. It seems a lot of tests leave out the upwind variable in their testing, which is a big factor for many distance paddlers or racers. They used the same fin for both boards. Looking forward to 14' comparisons for these boards too.

http://www.101surfsports.com/index.php/about-us/blog/295-which-is-faster-the-sic-fx-or-starboard-all-star

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 07, 2016, 08:23:39 AM
Nice review. But I'd want to know how a board of this type surfs, since BOP-type paddling would be one of it's natural uses. One of the biggest differences between these two boards appears to be tail width and volume, and that might affect surf-ability considerably.

They put the All Star's superior upwind performance down to greater flexibility. But isn't it more likely to be that it is an inch narrower, and/or difference in rocker or nose shape? I would have thought that flexibility would be some way down the list of features that might make a board good upwind. But I'm no expert.

They could also have mentioned the unbelievably good SIC handle. Nothing else comes even close.

I don't know how fair it is to say that the Starboard's construction is so superior when the boards are not really of comparable price. Plus, they did not mention the innegra reinforcements in key areas on the SIC for 2016, which should enhance durability considerably. You'd need to give it time before making a judgement about features like that, perhaps.

Everyone will have their own view on the looks of the boards. Personally it is no contest for me: I much prefer the clean and classic SIC graphics and lines.

It is interesting that they mention a 20 knot wind as a storm wind. That is just a breeze where I come from (yesterday I was downwinding and it was gusting 40 knots). It is useful to try boards of this type in really testing conditions I think, since many people will buy all-conditions type boards like this because they often go out in weather that renders flat water boards useless. But at least they didn't try them only in pure flat water, which some reviews of all-conditions boards have done.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 07, 2016, 09:51:29 AM
It's hard to say what variables they are using to quantify durability and construction being better or worse between the two. What "should" make a board more durable might not work out in the real world. The carbon version of the AllStar is very expensive, so I would expect any dealer to hype the construction if they are having good experiences in terms of durability. I'm no dealer, but I would be a bit nervous stocking these boards given the price. With that said, this shop operates right on the water, and they paddle their boards, and also rent out some of the higher end models, so they should have some insight on performance and durability having some time on both models now.

This test reflects what I have heard about the SB already, with stability for it's width and good performance on the flats and in DW conditions, but the upwind performance was something new. Most reviews don't mention upwind paddling at all. It's huge for distance paddlers and racers, and something that doesn't get talked about enough. I'm not sure about flex in a board, but I do draw a parallel with they were saying in "pumping" the board going upwind when the swell gets bigger and a bit of flex could possibly help. The test did mention the stiffness of the SIC helping on the flats. It could come down to a personal preference more than anything else.

Many people that buy these boards won't be racing them in BOP style events. Some will, but others will be testing themselves in open water and using them for all types of paddling. Surfing would be an interesting addition to a test though. Quite a few videos are available showing the the SB surfing, but most are of pros riding the Allstar, and they can surf just about anything.

I have seen/read about three tests with the Allstar now, and it's good that the SIC has been included in one. Both boards are highly rated in this review and tick the boxes for most people. Hopefully more testing with 14 footers will be done with the SIC and Bark Vapor. It would be nice if SIC and Bark offered these boards in additional widths. Right now it's narrow and narrower, which was reflected in this thread last year. These boards are designed to be fast, but a lot of larger paddlers are getting left out and this is a major oversight when the design of these boards hits the mark for what many paddlers want out of a board. This is one area where Starboard is ahead of the bell curve as the 2016 Allstar has width/volume options that will accommodate larger paddlers in both the 12'6" and 14' lengths.

http://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,27927.15.html
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 07, 2016, 10:03:59 AM
Good points. On the stability issue, I just bought a Bark Vapor 14x26 and can tell you that it is bizarrely stable for a 26" wide board. The choppier it gets, the more you notice it. I'm just an average guy, with very average balance, so this isn't some BS from a pro or a dealer.

Full review of the Vapor to come shortly. Unfortunately however we are just about to get a sea state that the UK Meteorological Office have described as "Phenomenal". Apparently this is the term used when you go beyond a "Very High" sea state. But I'd never heard it before. So I'm guessing I won't be using the Vapor until this storm has passed, and I need to do some more testing before writing the review.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 07, 2016, 10:30:45 AM
That's good to know about the Vapor. I'm fairly close in size to the guy paddling the Vapor in this video, and once I'm down to my summer weight of around 200 pounds, it would be more than fine I'm sure. It would just be nice to have a bit more volume and width to add a touch more versatility. The shape is spot on for pretty much every condition, so I'm sure there are a lot of really big paddlers that would love to give the Vapor a go. Same with the SIC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSMAhnavH4

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 07, 2016, 10:59:57 AM
I agree. A 28" wide Vapor would make an awesome all-round board and would be extremely stable. I wonder if hard board designs are being affected by iSUP sales. I think in some big markets it is expected that beginners and intermediates will mostly buy iSUPs, leaving the hard board sales to the more committed end of the market. Hence hard boards getting narrower and more expensive. But this is just a guess. Starboard are however still making the All Star in accessible widths and I think Fanatic has a moderately wide Falcon in their range, and Naish has the 14x29 all-waters Glide. So there are still a few options for people who value stability even from the bigger brands.

You should try the Vapor though. You might find it is perfectly stable enough for you. I don't think volume is likely to be an issue at your weight. I bought the Vapor expecting it to be a challenge for me to balance - almost in fact I wanted it to be a challenge, as a training tool. But in fact I find it almost as stable as my Bullet 14v2, which most people describe as stable: certainly MUCH more so than any 26 wide displacement nose board. I should imagine that when the reviews of the Vapor start coming in, many experienced racers will be asking for a 24" wide version, or maybe even narrower. I actually think that even I could cope with a 24" wide version in many conditions, and that is saying something.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 07, 2016, 11:08:21 AM
My BS meter starts going off when this "flex"'issue comes into play...while anything is possible...if flex was such a positive attribute...inflatables would walk away from hard boards ....especially upwind...which I keep reading is inflatables Achilles heel"
Smells like marketing hype...I don't know about anyone else but I don't like flex in my boards....if you have an optimized shape the last thing you would want is distortion of that shape...as to pumping the board, how is that producing forward motion? It's not like pumping up and down a wave face generating speed...
More likely it's the overall shape,  not flex that is giving the positive performance.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 07, 2016, 11:15:10 AM
Good point, SUPflorida. I have always assumed that the blurb in Starboard marketing that talks about designed-in flex is just there to try to excuse weak construction.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 07, 2016, 12:09:23 PM
To excuse weak construction?

I sense another SB bashing thread starting here. The other thread not long ago had no shortage of bias against SB. It would be nice to keep this from happening again.

This sport is extremely subjective when it comes to design preferences and even the most stringent testing measures in house or in shootouts like this are full of holes. It largely comes down to preference or opinions, which obviously vary, and remember, this shop sells BOTH SIC and Starboard. I have talked to them on the phone, and they praise SIC big time. I did mention that I can see a dealer hyping the construction of an uber expensive carbon board like the AllStar if it seems durable, because it would likely be harder to move than other cheaper options that arguably perform just as well. Is this what's happening with some of their comments? Maybe, but I'm not going to completely discount their opinions either.

Comparing a board having a bit of flex to inflatables? Taking it a bit far there. I have talked to multiple people who have stated they don't mind a bit of flex in their boards, and paddlers have actually mentioned it on these forums. Whether this translates into better upwind or downwind performance is debatable, which goes back to how subjective this sport is, and we are talking about slight flex, not complete "distortion" of the shape.

Regardless, you can throw the flex comments out the window, and the SB still performed much better than the SIC upwind in their test, but is this just bullshit now? Marketing hype? Anything that the SB does better than SIC in these tests gets written off as hype?  I'm starting to get the impression that this might be the case from some.

It could be merely preference from the paddlers, and they did mention the stiffness of the SIC in paddling the flats. What I actually really found interesting about the comments is that I also like to pump my board when going into decent size swell and going back over into the trough. It's fun and seems to do something, but once again, is this actually helping? Subjective and hard to quantify, but they aren't the only ones who do it. Also, this is one of the first tests I have read that didn't just mention upwind paddling, but they went into detail on it. This is very rare, which is strange considering how prevalent upwind paddling is in the sport, and kudos to these guys for actually including it in their test.

These guys gave the SIC the slight advantage for paddling the flats, and had it basically a draw in cross chop, but still gave the SIC the slight nod for speed there. For ease of use and stability and paddling in larger DW conditions, they gave the SB the edge, but did mention that highly skilled paddlers would be faster in DW conditions on the SIC. They also gave the SIC the nod for being a better value and acknowledged just how expensive the SB is. If you read the entire test, it seems pretty fair to me, and even concedes to SIC in terms of performance and overall value.

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: DavidJohn on February 07, 2016, 12:34:31 PM
I've paddled both boards and I'd agree with most of what they say.. I'm not a fan of the Starboard fin that they liked.. and I thought the construction and quality and finish was better on the SIC board..
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: TN_SUP on February 07, 2016, 12:36:47 PM
Weak construction may be too strong a statement,  I think the point is that the SB "flex" was an accidental "benefit" and not designed into the boards and marketing may be taking it too far.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 07, 2016, 12:44:16 PM
It seemed their review was what would be expected overall - and balanced enough.

Here is the SB take on "Flex Controlled Oscillation".  So new seems very similar to our old first gen Dominator flexy bounce.  But the Dom lay-up was light to reduce weight way back then -> when that board dominated many races.

In a few months we will test the FX and 2016 Allstar - so will find out firsthand about any BS marketing hype.  For us a board needs to be quick - but most important -> very comfortable in the ocean slop and cross chop we often ride in.  Wasting energy trying to balance is just not our idea of challenge or fun.  We just like to hop on and go 100% in all conditions.

Do look forward to your review of your Vapor A10 - especially any insight relating to the Pro-Elite durability and pressure denting.  Would say that our 27.5 Dominator is less stable than our 27.25 Bullet 14V2 -> so your 26 Vapor sounds like a very stable board indeed.  The prone vs deep vee shape may account for some of that.

For our general ocean conditions -> both the Dom and Bullet are very stable AW boards.  And our balance is very average also.

http://youtu.be/kYwb4FJei44
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 07, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
Weak construction may be too strong a statement,  I think the point is that the SB "flex" was an accidental "benefit" and not designed into the boards and marketing may be taking it too far.

I can agree with this, but there is a number of ways to look at it.. I'm also wondering if this may be a case of preference from the testers because they mentioned the stiffness of the SIC being beneficial on the flats, but brought up flex for upwind. It could be possible that these paddlers prefer a bit of give in boards and find it beneficial in certain situations, regardless if it is actually quantifiable.  Area 10 brings up a valid point in them leaving out board shape and width for paddling upwind, but maybe they really do dig what's going on with the flex and feel it helps. However, they could be justifying the flex because the AllStar seems to hold it's own and do better in some areas than the SIC, despite having more flex, so maybe this is where the "accidental benefit" comes in?  A lot of paddlers like really stiff boards, so it could be a marketing ploy in saying, "hey, our board has flex, but it still out performs, or does just as well, so flex is our magic sauce". Maybe if SB built a stiffer Allstar, it would gap the SIC by an even further margin upwind, or maybe it's has more to do with the shape, or maybe a combination of the shape and flex? A lot of maybes in there, which is the point. We really don't know either way.

It would be interesting to get a more in depth viewpoint from the paddlers who tested these boards, and maybe they would throw down their opinions on here. I think it comes down to preferences, and opinions, and these shops aren't going to please everyone with their reviews, and there is going to be bias to some degree, and with marketing strategies as well.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 07, 2016, 01:41:14 PM
I don't think there is any anti-Starboard bias here. This brand tends to explain more in their marketing material than many other brands, and tend to be highly innovative, so it is natural that their claims and innovations will be discussed more than most other brands. The 2016 All Star is a far more revolutionary design than the SIC FX. So there's more to talk about, both good (potentially) and bad (potentially).

I rather liked the 2015 All Star for the choppy stuff I paddle in. So if Starboard have improved it still further for 2016, and improved stability via the novel bottom channels etc, then I'm happy expect that this All Star is as good as the review suggests. The boards are probably aimed at slightly different markets - the FX aimed more towards the dedicated racer and the All Star towards someone looking for a flattering all-waters quiver-of-one. But then again, given the cost of either of these boards, neither is likely to be an impulse buy by a casual paddler.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on February 07, 2016, 01:47:36 PM
I found their review pretty fair. I haven't tried the SB yet, but I do have the 12'6 FX.
The flex thing is no BS, if you switch between two boards, one very stiff and one with some
flex, you'll notice it immediately. My FX, which is a custom, has the flex thing going for it as well
and I really like it compare to other very stiff boards I've used.

I'm not sure why their FX review board is 26" since the brochure Mark sent me stated the board as
25.5". Maybe they've changed it since then?

My take away from that review was that you can't go wrong with either, since they are both super fun
boards, the FX is by far the most fun board I've ever used (construction wise, there is a room for improvement, at least on my custom one that is).

But at $800 less, they basically gave the FX the nod since the only real advantage they gave the
SB was in upwind, everything else was splitting hairs basically.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 07, 2016, 02:03:50 PM
Personally we like no flex on flat -> and some flex in bumps.  The flex adds a more forgiving feel when it gets steep and deep -> whereas no flex gives a more instant response to paddle input.  Both have their pros and cons.

Very similar to ski and SB reverse camber - relating to race vs recreational.  We have race models with stiff flex - and there is absolutely no way you could zipper a bump run on a GS vs a soft flexing bump set-up.  Until you try firsthand -> most would never know the difference.  Now the bump ski with low torsional rigidity is a complete sloppy wet noodle on a high speed GS cranking turn in comparison.

Both the FX and 2016 Allstar seem like very good modern carbon boards.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 07, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
Burchas - I'm surprised you say the build of your custom FX isn't great. Is it a hand-built Maui board? I always thought that Raaphorst and colleagues would build a more durable board than Cobra, assuming the buyer hadn't asked for a super-light construction or something. Is this not so?
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 07, 2016, 02:14:42 PM
I don't think there is any anti-Starboard bias here. This brand tends to explain more in their marketing material than many other brands, and tend to be highly innovative, so it is natural that their claims and innovations will be discussed more than most other brands. The 2016 All Star is a far more revolutionary design than the SIC FX. So there's more to talk about, both good (potentially) and bad (potentially).

I rather liked the 2015 All Star for the choppy stuff I paddle in. So if Starboard have improved it still further for 2016, and improved stability via the novel bottom channels etc, then I'm happy expect that this All Star is as good as the review suggests. The boards are probably aimed at slightly different markets - the FX aimed more towards the dedicated racer and the All Star towards someone looking for a flattering all-waters quiver-of-one. But then again, given the cost of either of these boards, neither is likely to be an impulse buy by a casual paddler.

It just seemed to heading in that direction, but everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless. I'm not completely sold on the flex comments or mentions of construction, but can't write off what they are saying either. I prefer the looks of boards like the SIC and Vapor to the Allstar,  and after seeing Bark and SIC boards in the flesh, wouldn't mind owning either one.  Especially if they came in slightly wider widths and different construction options. Looking forward to your review of the Vapor.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on February 07, 2016, 03:39:21 PM
Burchas - I'm surprised you say the build of your custom FX isn't great. Is it a hand-built Maui board? I always thought that Raaphorst and colleagues would build a more durable board than Cobra, assuming the buyer hadn't asked for a super-light construction or something. Is this not so?

A10, i'm not an expert on construction quality, but my board is delicate, however, my case is a very
unique as this is a 2 piece board (hence the flex), so I can't even imagine what other factors are going into the construction.

That said, if not for Mark, my 2 piece project would not exist, I've asked about a dozen board manufactures if they can build it, they all laughed me off the phone, but Mark was like "Here in Maui, we can build you anything you want" and he did, and I'm a happy camper!
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Luc Benac on February 07, 2016, 05:06:33 PM
The shape is spot on for pretty much every condition, so I'm sure there are a lot of really big paddlers that would love to give the Vapor a go.

If it came CAD $1,000 less and possibly in a slightly stronger/heavier construction I would be one of them. I could perfectly live with a 28/29 lbs board but with a stronger finish and lower price. It would be difficult for me to go for a CAD $3,700 board period but even less so if the finish risk to be toasted after less than a season. A 26" Vapor and a 28" Downwinder would seat nicely in my garage and even nicer on my car.


Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 07, 2016, 06:05:04 PM
The shape is spot on for pretty much every condition, so I'm sure there are a lot of really big paddlers that would love to give the Vapor a go.

If it came CAD $1,000 less and possibly in a slightly stronger/heavier construction I would be one of them. I could perfectly live with a 28/29 lbs board but with a stronger finish and lower price. It would be difficult for me to go for a CAD $3,700 board period but even less so if the finish risk to be toasted after less than a season. A 26" Vapor and a 28" Downwinder would seat nicely in my garage and even nicer on my car.

You should convince your wife that the 26" vapor is the board she really needs. :)The SIC might be  more durable than the Vapor with their "Innegra" reinforcements in strategic places on the board. I would be surprised if the local Bark dealer here got in a Vapor while still sitting on Downwinders from last year, but I would love to try one. Price wise I was leaning towards the Hybrid construction Starboard AllStar, and it weighs around 29-30 pounds for the 27" wide version. I'm also wondering about the NSP-DC offerings. I have heard the new elements construction is pretty heavy, so their 14 X 29 board would probably be very similar in weight and intended use to what I already have. I really liked the look of their coco carbon version from a couple years back and it weighed around 29 pounds. I can live with that no problem after paddling 34-36 pound boards.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Luc Benac on February 07, 2016, 06:44:58 PM
You should convince your wife that the 26" vapor is the board she really needs. :)The SIC might be  more durable than the Vapor with their "Innegra" reinforcements in strategic places on the board. I would be surprised if the local Bark dealer here got in a Vapor while still sitting on Downwinders from last year, but I would love to try one. Price wise I was leaning towards the Hybrid construction Starboard AllStar, and it weighs around 29-30 pounds for the 27" wide version. I'm also wondering about the NSP-DC offerings. I have heard the new elements construction is pretty heavy, so their 14 X 29 board would probably be very similar in weight and intended use to what I already have. I really liked the look of their coco carbon version from a couple years back and it weighed around 29 pounds. I can live with that no problem after paddling 34-36 pound boards.

That will not work this time.... :-)  She is pretty set on keeping her JP Australia Sportster 14x28 - I wish I could have purchased the Carbon version at the time. I have to say that on flattish water, it is a great design and a 14x27~26 at 28 lbs would have been also the perfect board for me. I took it some time ago on my local lake speed run and after using my lighter boards I could definitely feel the weight. I actually look in Canada for a carbon version and the prices are also completely silly. I agree that the Starboard Carbon Glass/Hybrid construction is a great value. I would also like to see first hand the Jimmy Lewis sandwich signature construction. It seems to garner a lot of praise.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 07, 2016, 08:12:15 PM
Interesting thread here.  I don't like a flexy board either and had the same thoughts about that. First I have heard about the Starboard construction being "superior".  Usually I hear the opposite.  I also found it interesting that this board is described as a 26.  In Mark's vids he calls it 25 and 5/8ths for the 12 6 version. I am wondering if this was a pre-production board in the test and if the production board will be narrower with more volume, as we have seen with the 14 boards.  ???   Anyway, sounds like they really liked both boards.  My money is already down and waiting for the SIC FX 14.  I will keep the $800 difference thank you.     
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 08, 2016, 04:02:05 AM
Robon...my point wasn't Allstar bashing at all...can't argue with a board that performs...the source of that performance is almost certainly the synergy of outline/rocker/ bottom contours/rail shape etc....not flex....sounds like flex may have been a by product of wanting minimum weight and certain construction material/techniques.
The easiest way to fix any precieved weakness is to say you designed that way on purpose....and let the marketing guys run with it. It's a great looking board, it performs extremely well in multiple reviews. If it goes upwind as well as they say it does...could be the ticket for those of us that spend as much time or more going upwind than down. Just don't tell me "it's because of the flex....as said above it may be faster than it is if it didn't flex as much...maybe it speaks to the guys that grew up in the "bounce" generation?...you know the groms that hop up and down on their potato chips trying to drop into a wave.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Chilly on February 08, 2016, 05:59:50 AM
I believe the flex is intentional just like the flex that is intentionally built into different paddle shafts. I’ve paddled both the hybrid carbon and the full carbon. The flex in the full carbon is noticeable but nothing at all like an inflatable and there's no vibration like you get with a planning surf style board. I think it just helps absorb the chop when paddling upwind which I can see it translating into speed. An analogy will be driving a car with no suspension. The review is spot on with my experience with the new 2016 Allstar. I only question the weight of 22.5 lb being a little on the light side from the board I paddled (25 lb full carbon).
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 08, 2016, 07:59:29 AM
My BS meter starts going off when this “flex”’issue comes into play…while anything is possible…if flex was such a positive attribute…inflatables would walk away from hard boards ….especially upwind…which I keep reading is inflatables Achilles heel”


Inflatables will always suck in up or side wind coz of their huge height above the waterline. So any advantage they gain in another department is always going to be nil.

I found the perspective on flex working for you interesting. How much do you want to bet these guys are kiteboarders? Kiteboarders know what a stiff board works like upwind (read : suck).
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 08, 2016, 08:06:05 AM
For me, the jury is still out until someone can assure me that the SIC board tested matches Mark's description.  Did anyone check the size and volume marked on the bottom of the board?  Supposed to be 25 and 5/8ths and 265 advertised volume.  Advertised weight is listed at 22 pounds, but the test lists it at 24 lbs with fin and tape.  I suspect that the board tested was a pre-production board.

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on February 08, 2016, 08:28:13 AM
Robon...my point wasn't Allstar bashing at all...can't argue with a board that performs...the source of that performance is almost certainly the synergy of outline/rocker/ bottom contours/rail shape etc....not flex....sounds like flex may have been a by product of wanting minimum weight and certain construction material/techniques.
The easiest way to fix any precieved weakness is to say you designed that way on purpose....and let the marketing guys run with it. It's a great looking board, it performs extremely well in multiple reviews. If it goes upwind as well as they say it does...could be the ticket for those of us that spend as much time or more going upwind than down. Just don't tell me "it's because of the flex....as said above it may be faster than it is if it didn't flex as much...maybe it speaks to the guys that grew up in the "bounce" generation?...you know the groms that hop up and down on their potato chips trying to drop into a wave.

Considering multiple people have chimed in now and said that they prefer some flex in the bumps, I'm not so sure it's a weakness in the design at all. Could be accidental in the design process, but if people think some flex helps, then maybe it actually does. Even a FX owner has stated he likes some flex over a really stiff design. The flex in the review seems a bit overstated and  I agree that the performance can be attributed to multiple factors in the hull design, but even though I'm not convinced about the flex comments either, I'm not discounted it entirely. Especially when people have jumped in and have said a bit of flex can be a good thing. I had a starboard Race in the AST construction from a few years back and I got very noticeable board shudder when paddling into big upwind swells. That wasn't good flex. This seems different. Won't know until I try.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on February 08, 2016, 09:21:36 AM
Robon, I never tried to measure if the flex actually helps performance wise as I never tried
to measure it against a stiff board, however, I can say that for me, the flex just makes the ride so
much better. Remind me the difference in the ride on my road bike when I replaced seat to a model
with a shock absorbing carbon rails, the ride was so much better on the crappy road we have here.

I spend hours a month going upwind and with the FX it actually became a fun activity
for me when it's bumpy. Same goes for heavy side chop and sharp boat wakes that I get a lot.
Almost never have really flat water conditions, so it a moot point for me.

Rideordie, You were right about the volume 265, but the width for the production supposed to be
25.50. See attached image from the catalog. So I'm not sure what's with the 26" on the review.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 08, 2016, 10:21:42 AM
Even with lightweight riders - some boards do flex nicely.

1   Bullet 17.4 DCC demo - yes front flexes in waves
2   Bullet 14V2 SCC - no noticeable flex and feels quite stiff
3   JL M-14 SIB - yes front flexes in waves
4   SB Touring Carbon - zero flex very stiff
5   Dominator Pro-Elite - yes center flexes quite easy

For DB planing we prefer no flex - for more instant power.
For DW planing we prefer some flex - for more forgiveness.
SB seems to be promoting a center flex rebound concept.

JR talks about "bounce" at 4:50 in this vid.
Which we do all the time to get our boards to plane.
All about timing and power -> and works a charm.   ;)

http://youtu.be/7vFKZKqOm58
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 08, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
In Mark's interviews he says the 12 6 is 25 and 5/8ths.  My bet is that is what the board will be even though the catalog says 25.5 wide.   We shall see. 
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 08, 2016, 11:17:18 AM
In more general terms let's take a look at this flex thing ( forget the Allstar for a moment) Fiberglass laminates....in boat building...a lot a material goes into a hull to make it stiff enough...many times more material than is necessary to achieve appropriate panel strength. That's one of the main reasons for carbon...get the strength & stiffness without extra weight, compounded by doing sandwich construction to move the laminate layers farther apart. You are only going to get so much stiffness out a board for a given weight with conventional materials.

I put this question to the proponents of flex...what about cyclic loading?
How much faster is the fiber and/or resin going to breakdown if the board is noticeably flexing every stroke? That can't be ignored...especially if someone is forking over 3.5K and doesn't trade out every year or two? Is it plane old e-glass? Is it polypropylene (or some other fabric and resin that can hold up better to that kind of punishment)?

Yugi.....Kite boards? We are going to have to hunt pretty hard to find common ground with kite boards...it's going five times as fast, in full planing mode at all times, and is less than 1/3 the length and 1/2 the width...typical kite board probably couldn't float much more than a compact version of mans best friend.. Build a 14' kiteboarding 26" wide, limit its top speed to 8-10 mph and get back to me 😎 on that one.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Chilly on February 08, 2016, 12:13:11 PM
In more general terms let's take a look at this flex thing ( forget the Allstar for a moment) Fiberglass laminates....in boat building...a lot a material goes into a hull to make it stiff enough...many times more material than is necessary to achieve appropriate panel strength. That's one of the main reasons for carbon...get the strength & stiffness without extra weight, compounded by doing sandwich construction to move the laminate layers farther apart. You are only going to get so much stiffness out a board for a given weight with conventional materials.

I put this question to the proponents of flex...what about cyclic loading?
How much faster is the fiber and/or resin going to breakdown if the board is noticeably flexing every stroke? That can't be ignored...especially if someone is forking over 3.5K and doesn't trade out every year or two? Is it plane old e-glass? Is it polypropylene (or some other fabric and resin that can hold up better to that kind of punishment)?

Yugi.....Kite boards? We are going to have to hunt pretty hard to find common ground with kite boards...it's going five times as fast, in full planing mode at all times, and is less than 1/3 the length and 1/2 the width...typical kite board probably couldn't float much more than a compact version of mans best friend.. Build a 14' kiteboarding 26" wide, limit its top speed to 8-10 mph and get back to me 😎 on that one.

I’m not sure if this is related to your question. A bow as in archery, specifically traditional bows uses a piece of wood sandwiched between two pieces of fiberglass. It is flexed way more than any board will ever be and it holds up very well. I have a traditional long bow that’s over 25 years old and has been shot thousands of time, still looks and shoots great. It’s clear glass over bamboo.
Also the argument can be made that when there’s no flex, something's tend to snap or crack instead of absorbing the stress.

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 08, 2016, 12:27:15 PM
Chilly...lets see if we can get someone who keeps records of their strokes/distance per stroke to give us some data so we can put a number to this.... Find out how many up/down flex cycles say a five mile session produces...how many miles in a year...and assign some real viable numbers in place ...
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 08, 2016, 12:55:48 PM
Personally we like no flex on flat -> and some flex in bumps.  The flex adds a more forgiving feel when it gets steep and deep -> whereas no flex gives a more instant response to paddle input.  Both have their pros and cons.

Very similar to ski and SB reverse camber - relating to race vs recreational.  …

Even with lightweight riders - some boards do flex nicely.

1   Bullet 17.4 I’m driving. Good time to talk?  demo - yes front flexes in waves
2   Bullet 14V2 SCC - no noticeable flex and feels quite stiff
3   JL M-14 SIB - yes front flexes in waves
4   SB Touring Carbon - zero flex very stiff
5   Dominator Pro-Elite - yes center flexes quite easy

For DB planing we prefer no flex - for more instant power.
For DW planing we prefer some flex - for more forgiveness.
SB seems to be promoting a center flex rebound concept.


Hmmmmmm…
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: TN_SUP on February 08, 2016, 01:08:24 PM
Looks like Standup Outfitters has a 14' FX available to demo, I bought my pro lite from them, I will ask them about it.....first if it's true.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 08, 2016, 01:10:27 PM
...

Yugi.....Kite boards? We are going to have to hunt pretty hard to find common ground with kite boards...it's going five times as fast, in full planing mode at all times, and is less than 1/3 the length and 1/2 the width...typical kite board probably couldn't float much more than a compact version of mans best friend.. Build a 14' kiteboarding 26" wide, limit its top speed to 8-10 mph and get back to me 😎 on that one.

I said I bet the reviewers are kiteboarders. Wanna bet?

If I lose I promise to think about all your strawman arguments. If I win you might want to have a think about how I guessed they were.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 08, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
Play nicely now boys, please haha! We are all swimming in the same sea of unknowingness, but the various arguments on all sides are proving thought-provoking, and we'll probably reach a consensus eventually, having amused ourselves along the way.

Starboard yet again have managed to create a lot of column inches, whatever the merits or otherwise of their claims. They certainly have a gift for it. I'd like to see the board's shaper explain this flex theory, and how it is instantiated in the construction, in the same way that Mark Raaphorst takes the time to appear in videos introducing his shapes. But maybe SB have actually done this somewhere and I've just missed it.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 08, 2016, 01:54:26 PM
TN SUP,
If you test the FX 14 PLEASE flip it over and check the width and volume numbers before submitting your review.  The seemingly last minute change up on production specs has resulted in demo boards that don't match the production width and volume, which has created some significant confusion.  Also appears to have delayed container delivery.  I scour the internet almost daily looking for SIC FX reviews and I have not yet seen one verified on a production model in 14 or 12 6 length.  My (large) SIC dealer is telling me that the SIC container delivery is scheduled to arrive at his shop during the first or second week of March and I am to receive the first (14) that he ships out. 

By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a 2016 14 x 25 Carbon Allstar for sale on Distressed Mullet for $2,250.  That is a smoking deal!!  Condition 9/10.  Reason for selling: Owner is going down to 23 inches on width.  Board is located in Hilton Head, SC.  Close to me and very tempting, but I am waiting for the FX.           

http://distressedmullet.com/classifieds/standup-paddle-board/starboard-2016-carbon-allstar-14x25/
         
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 08, 2016, 03:09:54 PM
How much do you think we can believe "reasons for sale" in adverts? I guess I have always reckoned that the day I see reasons such as "the board is dog slow", "too tippy for me", and "I stole it" then I'd start paying attention. But so far I've only seen things like "I'm getting the narrower version", "lack of space forces sale" etc. But maybe I'm being too cynical.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 08, 2016, 04:47:22 PM
Yugi...I won't take that bet....that's almost a sure thing...in your favor 😏 But I'll carefully consider your position anyway🤔..."as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another".  I was hoping the smiley face at the end conveyed that this was a exchange of ideas and in no way, shape, or form an argument 🤗

I still hoping someone steps up with some data concerning distance per stroke for the average paddling enthusiast. I'll have to dig around a bit I think some of that was covered in one of the paddling stroke examinations videos on you tube.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 08, 2016, 05:19:47 PM
What is interesting is that SB is pushing the flex concept across all their race board marketing - not just the Allstar.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 08, 2016, 05:58:01 PM
Looking at their diagram...I ask again how in the world is bouncing up and down  enhancing forward motion? Inquiring minds want to know....

In light air sailboat racing, and it's been said of SUP racing as well....one speed technique is keeping the boat/board as calm going through the water as possible, that any jerky motion costs you speed...this flex bounce flys straight into the face of that.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 08, 2016, 06:45:19 PM
As a kiteboarder I can totally understand how board flex can work in your favor in traveling over rougher waters. I don't need to try work it out, I just know that it "can" so it opens my mind to be ready to think it might be OK. I was never so dead set against board flex, especially the 2014 Naish Javelin LE as others were. I've paddled one a lot and, in the past, have discussed this with pro-stiffnes paddlers and voiced the opinion it may not be slowing the board down when padding upwind in chop.

As a dinghy racer I also know how pumping and oching can be used, especially when  properly timed with the waves,  to generate more speed. I'm pretty sure my dinghy racing background, especially this aspect of it, has given me a good edge on others in downwind. (oops, my secret is out)

https://youtu.be/hEQttj8E1b0

I didn't know Starboard was hyping this flex as engineered. My reaction to that is the same as Florida's. Sorry, Florida, I wasn't aware of that hype. Gut reaction is they are just trying to call the flex they have in the light boards "not so bad". Once they start to claim they are engineering this into the board design as "storing" energy I'd also want to see some data behind it. Hard to do though.

Florida, I had understood it's an exchange of ideas. No worries.



Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: pdxmike on February 08, 2016, 08:24:20 PM
Looking at their diagram...I ask again how in the world is bouncing up and down  enhancing forward motion? Inquiring minds want to know....
That diagram looks dubious.  If the "pressure" being "stored" is downward on the downstroke, then the pressure being "released" on the upstroke should be upward, not partly forward as the little arrows optimistically show.  In other words, you're just bouncing down and up, not down and forward.  It looks like a marketing gimmick similar to what you'd see in a 1970s running shoe ad. 

I'm not saying there may not be advantages to having flex in boards in rough water or whatever, I'm just having trouble buying into the concept shown in the diagram of the energy being released propelling you forward.  And the board undoubtedly IS shooting forward on the "upstroke", but that's because the upstroke is coinciding with the power phase of the pull and the reduction in drag from the bottom of the board rising back up to flat.   

It reminds me of acceleration diagrams in swimming, since with a flexible board, you're changing the shape of the vessel just as your body position changes in the water during each stroke cycle.  But with swimming, a lot of the advances in speed have come from realizing the importance of not slowing down by creating drag.  The fastest swimmer is the one who slows down least after applying the power.  Seeing that diagram with the middle of the board dropping just looks like the flex is creating a big brake every stroke, like a breaststroker dropping his knees and killing his glide before every kick.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 08, 2016, 11:31:09 PM
Good points, pdxmike. And overall, I'm probably on your side of the fence here. However, just to play devil's advocate here, I'd guess that most people would agree with the statement that "in choppy conditions, a little rocker can help". They would also agree with the statement that "in flat water, a flatter rocker is faster". So if perhaps the paddler could co-ordinate the power phase of their paddle strokes with the moments when most rocker is needed, and the recovery phase with the moments when a flatter rocker would give most speed, then just maybe some flex might be turned to advantage?

However, once you extend this flex hypothesis to paddling in anything except chop, wouldn't you expect the board to be slower for the reasons pdx outlines? Rocker kills speed in flat water. So this would make the All Star fast in chop, at least once you have learnt a specific way of paddling it and become proficient at it. But then it would also make the board slower in flat water.

How much flex are we talking about, anyway? Has anyone tried resting an All Star on a couple of trestles and then standing on it (maybe bouncing up and down on it) to measure the amount of flex? Is it the whole board that is supposed to flex, or only certain areas such as the nose or tail? So many questions, so little information...
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 09, 2016, 04:21:05 AM
As a kiteboarder I can totally understand how board flex can work in your favor in traveling over rougher waters. I don't need to try work it out, I just know that it "can" so it opens my mind to be ready to think it might be OK. I was never so dead set against board flex, especially the 2014 Naish Javelin LE as others were. I've paddled one a lot and, in the past, have discussed this with pro-stiffnes paddlers and voiced the opinion it may not be slowing the board down when padding upwind in chop.

As a dinghy racer I also know how pumping and oching can be used, especially when  properly timed with the waves,  to generate more speed. I'm pretty sure my dinghy racing background, especially this aspect of it, has given me a good edge on others in downwind. (oops, my secret is out)

https://youtu.be/hEQttj8E1b0

I didn't know Starboard was hyping this flex as engineered. My reaction to that is the same as Florida's. Sorry, Florida, I wasn't aware of that hype. Gut reaction is they are just trying to call the flex they have in the light boards "not so bad". Once they start to claim they are engineering this into the board design as "storing" energy I'd also want to see some data behind it. Hard to do though.

Florida, I had understood it's an exchange of ideas. No worries.
Yugi...as a sailor I know where your coming from with the pumping and ouching...but I would contend it works on sail powered craft because your using the sail to work the boat against...same as you pump your sail and board simultaneously when trying to plane up a windsurfer in marginal conditions. It works great in those circumstances. In flat water and/or chop there is nothing like that to exploit on a SUP...just a board & paddle. SUP is really a different animal once you get away from surf oriented shapes...lots of new territory to explore...
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 09, 2016, 06:12:51 AM
Here SB seems to minimize their flex concept by reducing rocker -

"Flat profile and extended waterline performs with a linear glide, distributing the weight throughout the entire board, reducing any pitching or bouncing effect. The glide gives a hovering sensation on the water instead of ploughing through it."

Interesting ..... never have experienced a hovering sensation except when planing DW.  But maybe Connor and the like can do it when sprinting.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 09, 2016, 06:28:24 AM
Here SB seems to minimize their flex concept by reducing rocker -

"Flat profile and extended waterline performs with a linear glide, distributing the weight throughout the entire board, reducing any pitching or bouncing effect. The glide gives a hovering sensation on the water instead of ploughing through it."

Interesting ..... never have experienced a hovering sensation except when planing DW.  But maybe Connor and the like can do it when sprinting.
This is getting deep...🙄  That must have been a SB that Marty McFly had in "Back to the Future" 😏
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: UKRiverSurfers on February 09, 2016, 07:02:36 AM
Burchas - I'm surprised you say the build of your custom FX isn't great. Is it a hand-built Maui board? I always thought that Raaphorst and colleagues would build a more durable board than Cobra, assuming the buyer hadn't asked for a super-light construction or something. Is this not so?

A10, i'm not an expert on construction quality, but my board is delicate, however, my case is a very
unique as this is a 2 piece board (hence the flex), so I can't even imagine what other factors are going into the construction.

That said, if not for Mark, my 2 piece project would not exist, I've asked about a dozen board manufactures if they can build it, they all laughed me off the phone, but Mark was like "Here in Maui, we can build you anything you want" and he did, and I'm a happy camper!

Ah - you're the geeza who ordered the 2 piece :)
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: UKRiverSurfers on February 09, 2016, 07:08:32 AM
What is interesting is that SB is pushing the flex concept across all their race board marketing - not just the Allstar.

Hmmmmmm - down stroke and upstroke??  8) ;D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 09, 2016, 07:08:47 AM
...
I would also like to see first hand the Jimmy Lewis sandwich signature construction. It seems to garner a lot of praise.

We got a JL carbon Rail in our buddy quiver and I've been on it in light wind. Perfect finish as always. Beautiful paint. It's lighter than the Bullet V2. Will post pics in another thread when I got a moment.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: UKRiverSurfers on February 09, 2016, 07:12:25 AM
I wonder if SB have underwater vid analysis of this 'downstroke and upstroke' they speak of....?  :o
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 09, 2016, 07:17:12 AM
This is getting deep...🙄  That must have been a SB that Marty McFly had in "Back to the Future" 😏

Gotta love the imagination of them marketing types.   ;D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 09, 2016, 07:24:15 AM
...

Hmmmmmm - down stroke and upstroke??  8) ;D

Get up for the down stroke, everybody get up

https://youtu.be/1Kw2zSgm6BA?t=1h27s
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Chilly on February 09, 2016, 08:08:16 AM
Pumping a surfboard up and down to gain speed may sound counter intuitive but it works. So Starboards claims don’t seem so farfetched to me. Now hovering, I don’t think so  ;D but good marketing. Look what it did to this post.
I read yesterday Larry Cain is getting a 2016 Allstar. I look forward to reading his review. I just received mine 2 weeks ago, but have only been able to paddle it in flatwater, but so for so good. It's hybrid carbon so it doesn't have the extra flex. 
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on February 09, 2016, 08:27:21 AM
Starboard score an own goal again, by the looks of it. They come up with an innovative design that seems to be garnering universal praise, and then ruin the effect through over-exuberant marketing claims. I wish they wouldn't over-egg it this way - it's the kind of tactic I associate with fly-by-night operations, not a premium brand. Please try to be classy, Starboard. A good product sells itself.

But if it turns out that SB have actually invented a hover board then I want one!
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 09, 2016, 08:27:27 AM
SB also claims their SUP suit has advanced ultra flex and hyper flex material.  Their SUP paddle is a carbon super flex / multiplex flex paddle.   In their 2014 Allstar ad they claimed "super exotic Star Flex carbon" throughout the entire board.

...and now Like most creatures in the ocean, Starboards race boards have noticeable flex, thus utlising the energy generated from
the body moving up and down during paddle strokesthey flex "like creatures of the ocean"

....   Flex.....yawn.  Next year, they will push the limits.  Our boards have Gonzo Flex and generate Maximum Turbo Power like Arnold on a full hit of steroids pummelling the competition like girly men.  Ride SB or be Terminated!!  Take note Danny and Travis, resistance is futile!!                 
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: UKRiverSurfers on February 09, 2016, 10:21:54 AM
...

Hmmmmmm - down stroke and upstroke??  8) ;D

Get up for the down stroke, everybody get up

https://youtu.be/1Kw2zSgm6BA?t=1h27s

I love that album :)

Motor Booty Affair even more :D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: wannaride on February 09, 2016, 10:46:24 AM
The Starboard flex is for real and is helpful particularly going into a chop and to some degree on downwinders as the nose will not bury as much.

My 14' x 28" All Star has lots more initial stability than my Bark Dominator of the same dimensions.  For that matter my SO has a 12.6' x 26" All Star that seems nearly as stable as the Dominator with significantly less volume.  Why?  It seems that the changing radius rails,  concave bottom,  buoyancy distribution and sunken foot box all help.   The Dominator is up for sale.  My experiences with SIC's is limited but the V2's are the downwind board of choice around here. They are very well made boards.

Starboards are expensive and so understandably people want to think that they can get an equal or better board for less money.   
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on February 09, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Starboard score an own goal again, by the looks of it. They come up with an innovative design that seems to be garnering universal praise, and then ruin the effect through over-exuberant marketing claims. I wish they wouldn't over-egg it this way - it's the kind of tactic I associate with fly-by-night operations, not a premium brand. Please try to be classy, Starboard. A good product sells itself.

But if it turns out that SB have actually invented a hover board then I want one!
Area 10 I think you nail it⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: TN_SUP on February 09, 2016, 12:35:38 PM
Drum roll please....According to Standup Outfitters in Bern, N.C., the dimensions written on the Demo SIC FX are 14' X 26" and volume is 266 liters. Soooo, still not 100% sure until the production boards arrive en masse. Their container will arrive in a few weeks. They have been paddling it and said "As for a speedy all conditions board, the FX in general is amazing. It blows through chop and maintains speed without wearing out your legs." :D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 09, 2016, 12:53:46 PM
TN SUP,
 As I suspected...that does sound really encouraging though.  So what will an inch more narrow and an additional 24 liters of volume do to it?  My guess is:  A bit faster.  A bit less stable.  And a bit more buoyant.  I guess that they will have to do a new comparison.  If the FX gets any faster, the Allstar riders can just jump up and down on their boards and I am sure the flex acceleration will help them keep up.   ;D 

Just kidding guys!!     8)           
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: DavidJohn on February 09, 2016, 12:55:23 PM
I also find all this pretty fascinating..  I've also talked to DC (Dale Chapman) about it.. It seems like there is a need for the board to move up and down in a rocking horse type motion and if the shape or construction resists this it's slowing the board down.. So you either have a stiff board like an Ace/Falcon/Deep and have a very narrow tail that can move up and down without much resistance and also needs a pretty deep side rail to prevent the tail going under.. Or.. you have a wider tail and thiner and less deep rail on a board with flex.. This is why Travis Grant likes round bottom boards because they allow the board to move up and down better than a flat bottom but are also very tippy for most people.. If you look at someone paddling a narrow ski you will see the nose/tail moving up and down as a result of the paddling motion... Personally I hate flex and would prefer a stiff board because I'm heavy but I can see how a lighter person might be best on a board with some flex.. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here.. but it is interesting and something very different to windsurfing boards that I'm more in tune with.

Look very closely at the few seconds at 3.12-3.15 in this vid.. You can see how much the tail of this Ace like Deep board moves up and down.

http://vimeo.com/148090339
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Luc Benac on February 09, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
Drum roll please....According to Standup Outfitters in Bern, N.C., the dimensions written on the Demo SIC FX are 14' X 26" and volume is 266 liters. Soooo, still not 100% sure until the production boards arrive en masse. Their container will arrive in a few weeks. They have been paddling it and said "As for a speedy all conditions board, the FX in general is amazing. It blows through chop and maintains speed without wearing out your legs." :D

The distributor in Canada confirmed 25" and the higher volume....and I think that his container is also on his way but I cannot find the FB message again...
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 09, 2016, 01:40:01 PM
I found their review pretty fair. I haven’t tried the SB yet, but I do have the 12’6 FX.
The flex thing is no BS, if you switch between two boards, one very stiff and one with some
flex, you’ll notice it immediately. My FX, which is a custom, has the flex thing going for it as well
and I really like it compare to other very stiff boards I’ve used.


But at $800 less, they basically gave the FX the nod since the only real advantage they gave the
SB was in upwind, everything else was splitting hairs basically.

Interesting because I received a completely different message.

My takeaways:
- Flats: SIC won. I could’t give a damn, if I’m in a race I won’t be first so it’s going to be choppy as hell. If I’m not in a race who cares. Besides - it’s marginal.
- Upwind in bumps Allstar clear winner
- cross chop: SIC quicker but “the Starboard seemed a bit easier to keep on line” and felt more stable. I’m liking the Starboard here.
- downwind: maybe SIC faster with expert rider but Allstar easier, turner and, while not mentioned explicitly, sounds like would handle bigger conditions better. I’m liking the Starboard here.
Both for stable and turny. Super important for me.
- Bouy turning: funny, they give SIC the nod for quicker turns but later point out the Allstar more stable when kick turning.
- Stability: Allstar win. Also it’s narrower so nicer to paddle.
- Fun: Allstar win
- Construction: review clearly favours Allstar
- Price: SIC win
- Fins: whatever. I like the SIC one too.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Kaihoe on February 09, 2016, 01:50:34 PM
Starboard score an own goal again, by the looks of it. They come up with an innovative design that seems to be garnering universal praise, and then ruin the effect through over-exuberant marketing claims. I wish they wouldn't over-egg it this way - it's the kind of tactic I associate with fly-by-night operations, not a premium brand. Please try to be classy, Starboard. A good product sells itself.

But if it turns out that SB have actually invented a hover board then I want one!

Yeah the marketing BS meter is waay off the scale on this one. Their flex video with that picture in also show ACE and is implying that all the board with their fancy pant carbon get the advantage of flex. I'd love to see the engineering to build flex into a n ACE or sprint with their solid sides.

IMHO this is some proactive marketing as the new Al Start flexes so much more than the old one.  It might also be some hedging against the build quality at Cobra.  The latest SB boards look pretty good and well made... But there appears to be a huge weight variance on supposedly identical carbon boards.

And I've got an older ACE which was built out of 2 blanks. We found this fixing a crack across the bottom of the board, opened it up and there was a huge  engineered join just in front of the standing area!!

That said I really like the new All Star, I an see one in my quiver as a surf race/dw board. 

BTW it is pretty good up wind, but they guys in the original review have obviously not paddled an ACE upwind because there is still no comparision

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 09, 2016, 03:53:29 PM
From this Starboard SUP vid -

"The All Star's profile is very much oriented as a downwind board - but combined with the bottom shape - it also gives incredible flat water performance" ..... "the sharp rail makes it easier to steer the board on downwind bumps - and catching waves"

If the 14x25 is anywhere close in stability to our very stable Dom and Bullet - and steers somewhat like a hard rail M-14 -> it would be a viable option for efficient up down planing in smaller AW conditions and general knock-about fun.  So am looking forward to upcoming demo days when it warms up.  Out of the current crop of cross-over boards - a discounted full carbon one has some appeal.

But a 14x23 Sprint hover board might be a bit more fun.   ;D

http://youtu.be/80FgPsMHKZE
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on February 09, 2016, 03:53:45 PM
I found their review pretty fair. I haven’t tried the SB yet, but I do have the 12’6 FX.
The flex thing is no BS, if you switch between two boards, one very stiff and one with some
flex, you’ll notice it immediately. My FX, which is a custom, has the flex thing going for it as well
and I really like it compare to other very stiff boards I’ve used.


But at $800 less, they basically gave the FX the nod since the only real advantage they gave the
SB was in upwind, everything else was splitting hairs basically.

Interesting because I received a completely different message.

My takeaways:
- Flats: SIC won. I could’t give a damn, if I’m in a race I won’t be first so it’s going to be choppy as hell. If I’m not in a race who cares. Besides - it’s marginal.
- Upwind in bumps Allstar clear winner
- cross chop: SIC quicker but “the Starboard seemed a bit easier to keep on line” and felt more stable. I’m liking the Starboard here.
- downwind: maybe SIC faster with expert rider but Allstar easier, turner and, while not mentioned explicitly, sounds like would handle bigger conditions better. I’m liking the Starboard here.
Both for stable and turny. Super important for me.
- Bouy turning: funny, they give SIC the nod for quicker turns but later point out the Allstar more stable when kick turning.
- Stability: Allstar win. Also it’s narrower so nicer to paddle.
- Fun: Allstar win
- Construction: review clearly favours Allstar
- Price: SIC win
- Fins: whatever. I like the SIC one too.


Well yugi, you can look at it from a different angle... At $3500 of the SB, I can just call Mark
and have him build me an FX with just the flex I want, the width which optimized for me, make the
tail slightly wider (if that's your thing), put the handles in the position I like.

Throw in why don't you, a Larry Allison 4 fin setup with the color and graphics I want. Hell, I can even ask him to make it a 2 piece so I can carry it in my SUV, no racks needed and store it in my apartment - no boat house needed.

Either way, the FX still comes a winner. Take it as it is for $800 less or build the board of your dreams for $3500.
SB would really need to add a lot of flex to their marketing to spin this in their favor ;D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 09, 2016, 06:34:30 PM
The Allstar at 22.5 lbs is sick light. No wonder it flexes. Yes, there is a hefty premium to pay for ultra light gear.

I’m sensing you are not an ultralight aficionado, Burchas. It is understood you have other unavoidable constraints (space) so any normal board is not even an option.

A light board is incredible to paddle. Acceleration is phenomenal. I've had some time on a Naish Javelin LE and the lightness is very addictive. I’m surprised the review didn’t mention this in the parts reviewing the ways the boards handle. Yes, there are downsides. Price, fragile (flexy too) and less stable in festive conditions.

I, on the other hand, am a certified weight weenie. Where you know, and value, the [lack of] weight of your paddle I know the weight of everything. My other sports are ski alpinism, where every gram counts, and mtn biking. Even my kite board and the footstraps on it are ridiculously light. Living in mountains where rides have serious amounts of vertical a light bike or skis make a world of difference. Yes, even the screws on my bike are titanium to shave a gram or 2, my ski poles (and gloves) crazy light and, yes, my wallet has also been well lightened in the process. Going light is a very expensive proposition in gear and gets exponential in cost once you reach the exquisitely light end of the spectrum.

So I am not shocked at the Allstar price tag.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Rideordie on February 09, 2016, 07:54:03 PM
Yugi, I agree that the Allstar is light at 22.5 lbs with fin and tape.  That is right at what Starboard lists the weight for a 12 6 carbon.  I am puzzled why the FX 12 6  weighs in at 24 lbs, when the SIC literature lists it at 22 lbs.  Again, I suspect the board used in the test is a pre-production board.   We will know for sure when the shipments hit the dealers in early March.  (FYI, SIC lists the 14 footer at 24 lbs.)  I think the bar has been moved on weight expectations for race boards in recent years.  22 to 23 lbs is about what I would expect for a top tier 12 6 carbon race board now.  24-25 lbs for a 14 footer.         
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 09, 2016, 08:05:02 PM
As long as the All Star 14x25 has a proper Carbon lay-up at 25.82 lbs +/- 6% it should be plenty strong.  Our Bullet SCC is 26.5 lbs and has virtually no flex.  Our overbuilt SB Touring Carbon at 27.5 lbs feels like a heavy aircraft carrier.  26.5 lbs Carbon feels about right -> and only one pound more at 27.5 lbs feels overly heavy.  A one pound extra mass just makes it harder to accelerate when you want to launch off a wave into planing mode.  The difference between getting on glide vs getting on plane is a completely different level - where lightness makes all the difference especially in DB conditions.  We always want to be in plane mode and not simply gliding along with the waves.  Fun for us is going as fast as possible.

So would expect the All Star to be strong enough - unless you happen to get an underweight build.  Our experience with SB gives us some level of confidence in their build - but as noted - a couple of years ago we wanted to buy a super light Sprint Carbon 14x25 at about 23 lbs - until we noticed a 2" gash in its very thin underbody.  So definitely a build that is too light - can be a potentially big problem down the road.

On a side note - the Ace boof does actually go very well in chop and waves - and slides amazingly quick over waves upwind.  Even with all their hype - SB makes decent boards - plus light strong flickable paddles as well.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on February 09, 2016, 08:36:16 PM
I’m sensing you are not an ultralight aficionado...

yugi, you missed the mark on that. I too am an ultralight aficionado brethren. I got the same titanium
screws for my bike, down to my carbon bottle holder which ways about 10grams...

The quoted weight for that Custom FX is 20-21 LB (Could go lighter if you were to sacrifice other things).

That said, the difference of 1 pound on the water is academic for most people. It might have some
effect for super sprinters, but once in motion, I would challenge anyone to tell me the difference
even on a side by side test.

I agree with you that going light is a very expensive proposition but my guess is that many people
would rather save $800 over 1 pound although, as Rideordie wrote,  the quoted weight for the FX production board is 22 pounds (see the image I attached on a previous post). so on paper, the FX
is actually lighter than the SB both in weight and on your pocket.

So we are going back to the flex or not argument which is the biggest difference between the boards
other than the price tag. I actually prefer the flex as I stated before, but as you could see from the
length of this thread, many pips think it's a marketing BS.

Either way, on paper, the FX wins, but at this level, it really comes down to a matter of preference
and I suspect you would choose SB either way, but I would love to hear you say that if in fact the FX
is lighter than the SB (as stated in the catalog), you would go for it. :D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on February 10, 2016, 08:32:50 AM
 

Truth be told I’ll be taking the board that’s lightest impact on the wallet these days. Plus probably a strong one as in downwinding there’s so much potential for board damage when loading and unloading with a big group of people in strong wind. My friends are savages.

As a weight weenie you know I believe scales and not marketing fluff on brochures.

Even though I’m on a lake my priority is a all-round board that handles heavy chop and downwinds well. Truth is it gets choppy and windy quick here.

I like the FX for it’s nice clean lines, fast flat bottom but it’s just a bit too flatwater tuned for me. It is even pointed out that on flats the speed gain is marginal. I wasn’t so keen on the high volume and high rider height and the review just confirmed that.

I was thinking of a Rogue DW x25 but, as much as I’m a fan of clean simple lines and not a fan of fads, I have to admit I am wildly curious about the Allstar and how that bottom is working. Echoes continue to come in that it’s stable and my inkling that it’d turn like crazy seems confirmed by this review. Did they say fun?

I’m on the lookout for a board that is narrow yet very stable and the Allstar is on the radar.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on February 10, 2016, 08:48:44 AM
As a weight weenie you know I believe scales and not marketing fluff on brochures.
+1

I would want to try that allstar myself, see what's all the rage about with the flex and all.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: supuk on February 10, 2016, 11:50:05 AM
what get me is that starboard can get away with calling it hybrid carbon but when you look at the specs it says the only carbon is some uni down the rails that probably amount to about $15 and probably less than 5% of the materials in the board!



 how much carbon do you have to put on a all glass board to legally call it carbon?



There is no way that the hybrid carbon is going to be stiffer than the carbon sandwich  yet they say flex is good.

pumping the board over bumps up wind  works just ask any one who jumps a push bike or watch any bmx race but personally i would say its more in tecnique than in the board, its just more marketing bs.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on February 10, 2016, 03:44:20 PM
"Upwind in the bumps – This wasn’t really a contest with the All Star simply dominating. The more flexible layup simply shined. Bumps were absorbed with much more efficiency and leg pumping was rewarded with upwind squirts reminiscent of pumping a skateboard ramp. The Starboard dropped the SIC with relative ease. The 2016 All Star may be the best upwind board we have ever paddled."

It would be unusual for someone to make such a definitive statement if it had zero validity -> especially coming from a retailer review.  We have experienced something similar in steep and deep chop.  Where our curvy M-14 motors upwind in messy conditions -> our flatter SB Touring cannot absorb anything.  What seems to happen is the rocker and nose flex allow more float over the bumps vs pearling and stalling.  The stiff board pounds and pearls away making less constant headway.  It feels slow -> and is slow.

The same applies DW in steep and deep bumps.  The M-14 just floats over -> whereas the SB Touring spears making it very hard to plane.  In those instances we have to slow to the speed of the waves and ride along.  So in that way it makes sense that "The Starboard dropped the SIC."

The forward vectors probably account for the pull of the forward power stroke.  Simply jumping up and down will not do anything.  When we properly time a bump and unweight we do launch and plane with speed - and our big blade Riviera helps a ton.  Our smaller blades do nothing for that.  So when JR talks about "get a little bounce with the legs" -> makes complete sense.  But it comes down to timing -> just like all the various pumping examples noted by various posters in this thread.  We happen to do this all the time SB and skiing -> so maybe that has something to do with it.  It is a basic survival necessity down bump runs and when getting some air.

But "hovering" is a bit much.   ;D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: baddog on March 07, 2016, 11:53:20 AM
As a weight weenie you know I believe scales and not marketing fluff on brochures.
+1

I would want to try that allstar myself, see what's all the rage about with the flex and all.

Starboard is a master of misdirection and marketing hyperbole.  I'm a Starboard fan, but it's speak is build purposely to misguide the competition and daze and amaze the masses.  I only dislike when I can't decipher what they are talking about and have to drag it out of them.  Drag is a bit harsh, they usually respond willingly.

But when it comes to this flex thing, I certainly know it's worth in the surf, but on a race board, I think it's just the nature of the construction and a brilliant spin on a lightweight build.  Maybe the flex is a benefit, maybe it's more down to the bottom shape.  We'll see if it pans out in the long run.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 07, 2016, 01:33:52 PM
Well, on the upside, if you don't enjoy padding the 2016 All Star, you could just use it as a trampoline.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Quickbeam on March 07, 2016, 07:47:44 PM
Well, on the upside, if you don't enjoy padding the 2016 All Star, you could just use it as a trampoline.

Now that's funny!!
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: coldsup on March 08, 2016, 01:01:07 AM
what get me is that starboard can get away with calling it hybrid carbon but when you look at the specs it says the only carbon is some uni down the rails that probably amount to about $15 and probably less than 5% of the materials in the board!

 how much carbon do you have to put on a all glass board to legally call it carbon?


Yup - ridiculous as with the prices of any brand name carbon board in the UK.....
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on March 08, 2016, 04:49:40 AM
^ honestly... is the carbon fiber itself really that expensive to justify the prices?
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: SUPflorida on March 08, 2016, 05:51:31 AM
Yugi ...you can get 10 yds 5.6 oz 3k 2x2 TW 50" wide carbon twill cloth for $200...retail...so the big manufactures like Cobra should be paying closer to 50% of that...or $100.00 US for a full carbon layer top & bottom on a 14' board...subtract the cost of the glass it's replacing...so the up charge is not proportional to the manufactures increase in cost. Pretty much in any sport, you claim carbon in your product and the price plays as much, or more on emotion....
than it does in utility.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on March 08, 2016, 06:01:53 AM
That's what I thought
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 08, 2016, 08:25:49 AM
Just vote with your wallet, and help stop this carbon madness. In the UK you typically pay an extra £1000 for a carbon version of a board. Look up what 1000 GBP (Great British Pounds) is worth in your local currency and ask yourself how a layer or two of carbon fibre can possibly add that much to the price of a board.


You don't re-coup it at resale either. Depreciation of carbon boards from new is like pulling a week's wages out of your pocket and throwing it straight down a drain.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Quickbeam on March 08, 2016, 08:42:06 AM
You don't re-coup it at resale either. Depreciation of carbon boards from new is like pulling a week's wages out of your pocket and throwing it straight down a drain.

I've heard this before. Any thoughts as to why carbon boards depreciate so quickly?
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: pdxmike on March 08, 2016, 11:00:45 AM
Just vote with your wallet, and help stop this carbon madness. In the UK you typically pay an extra £1000 for a carbon version of a board. Look up what 1000 GBP (Great British Pounds) is worth in your local currency and ask yourself how a layer or two of carbon fibre can possibly add that much to the price of a board.

You don't re-coup it at resale either. Depreciation of carbon boards from new is like pulling a week's wages out of your pocket and throwing it straight down a drain.
There's some irony in spending 1000 pounds to save 3 or 4.

I'd guess the depreciation is because many people who are willing spend a lot for carbon's slight performance advantage are also the types that are willing to take a financial hit in order to get the most current designs (responding to Quickbeam's question).  It's not that anything goes physically wrong with carbon after a year, barring abuse.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 08, 2016, 12:02:11 PM
Yeah, that's right, it about the psychology of the buyers. People buying used are looking for good value, so price is a major determining feature for them. People buying carbon boards new are looking for performance, and that is their major determining feature, rather than value for money, durability etc.

Fortunately for most of us buyers for whom price counts, paddlers are beginning to realise that race performance is 99.9% the paddler, not the board, so are getting a bit more circumspect with their money, I think.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: raf on March 14, 2016, 06:27:15 AM
Carbon boards depreciate more quickly than glass boards because they are over valued to begin with.  If you buy a carbon board you are practically saying "I am willing to over pay for an incremental boost to performance".  The glass version will get you 95% of the way there.  The carbon one will give you another 2%. 
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 14, 2016, 02:25:20 PM
Carbon boards depreciate more quickly than glass boards because they are over valued to begin with.  If you buy a carbon board you are practically saying "I am willing to over pay for an incremental boost to performance".  The glass version will get you 95% of the way there.  The carbon one will give you another 2%.
Much less than 2%. I've GPSed different versions of the same board very carefully and the difference in average speed is so small it's hard to measure. My theory is that lighter boards FEEL faster because our senses are more sensitive to changes in speed than differences in constant speed. So the stop-start nature of a lighter board gives the impression of speed whereas the heavy board, conserving more momentum, feels slower because the changes in speed are less dramatic. But the actual speeds over a decent distance (at least in windless flat conditions) are barely measurable.

Most people could race the AST version of their super-expensive carbon board and it would not make one jot of difference to their race results.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: TN_SUP on March 14, 2016, 06:04:47 PM
But if I hurt my shoulder unloading a heavy board from my roof rack, there's no paddling. Any lifting overhead is potentially dangerous for old shoulders, so carbon it is for me.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 14, 2016, 08:48:48 PM
A 50% retail price drop on a Carbon board tells the story on depreciation and value.  That is why we buy at the end of the year - new demo or used.  You often can get a top flight board for a reasonable price - but you must be patient - and be in the right place at the right time.

In regards to speed - just add 10 and 20 lb weights to your board - then paddle at least 5 miles at race pace.  Extrapolate speed and distance times - and determine if lighter weight is beneficial to you.  As lightweight riders we feel every single pound - especially when putting max power down launching off waves - and when paddling 10 mi distances fast in the ocean. 

Lighter is better for us in near every way provided durability is there.  At 26.5 lbs and over - full Carbon has been 100% durable.  Our heaviest board is a glass I-beam M-14 which weighs a hefty 28 lbs in comparison.  Interestingly that relatively small 1-1/2 lb weight difference can easily be felt carrying long distances - and when lifting overhead.  So for many - when possible - Carbon is best purchased when discounted to maximize the value quotient.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: coldsup on March 15, 2016, 01:45:33 AM
A 50% retail price drop on a Carbon board tells the story on depreciation and value.  That is why we buy at the end of the year - new demo or used.  You often can get a top flight board for a reasonable price - but you must be patient - and be in the right place at the right time.

In regards to speed - just add 10 and 20 lb weights to your board - then paddle at least 5 miles at race pace.  Extrapolate speed and distance times - and determine if lighter weight is beneficial to you.  As lightweight riders we feel every single pound - especially when putting max power down launching off waves - and when paddling 10 mi distances fast in the ocean. 

Lighter is better for us in near every way provided durability is there.  At 26.5 lbs and over - full Carbon has been 100% durable.  Our heaviest board is a glass I-beam M-14 which weighs a hefty 28 lbs in comparison.  Interestingly that relatively small 1-1/2 lb weight difference can easily be felt carrying long distances - and when lifting overhead.  So for many - when possible - Carbon is best purchased when discounted to maximize the value quotient.

I used to think the M14 was a mid to heavier weight board until I properly weighed it and realized it is pretty good in terms of weight - considering the 14ft Starboard Allstar (hybrid construction) and Glide and similar boards are about 14 to 15+ kg...no fun carrying their boards and they must feel sluggish on acceleration.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 15, 2016, 05:27:03 AM
Eagle, we aren't talking about 10-20lbs. The difference between a typical AST and carbon in a 14fter is usually around 3-4lbs. Now, distribute 3lbs evenly around your board, on both top and bottom surfaces, and do the same with equally sized blocks of foam (to account for the loss of hydrodynamics on the bottom surface) and try your test in flat water. Or maybe you could just give it a few extra coats of paint. You'll have to be testing for hours before you find a statistically significant difference. For sure, in certain conditions weight can make a slight difference in dlat water, and we are still talking about only one or two seconds every 2 minutes even in the most severe conditions - equal to, say, one puff of wind or a slightly slow change of paddle side.

My point is this: the carbon boards FEEL faster for sure. But if you actually measure them scientifically, the difference is actually much smaller than it feels. But most people are not willing to spend an entire day and the help of a whole group of friends to gather the data, nor do they have the statistical and experimental design skills to carry out such an experiment. But this kind of stuff is my day job and I have a very helpful bunch of friends, so I have bothered to spend the hours it takes to actually gather the data rather than just go with what I "feel". And I'm telling you that the difference in actual real-world performance is tiny.

However, most of my boards are nevertheless carbon, or part carbon. Why? Because when carrying the boards after a long session, even 3lbs makes a difference. So, like you, I tend to keep my ear to the ground and buy ex-demo or end of season or used if I can.

If you do races which have a beach run/start component then the extra weight of the AST could actually make a noticeable difference - but out of the water not in it.

Incidentally, when downwinding, a slightly heavier board can actually be an advantage sometimes, practically, when loading, unloading etc and they can give a smoother ride and more stability.

And yes, the M14 is a very good weight for a non-carbon board. Most are very tough too. I think for most people it's probably around the ideal weight/cost/durability combination. But if you are a bantam-weight, of course you will want a bantam-weight board: Some women I know struggle to even load carbon 12-6 boards on their roof-racks, and find it pretty much impossible on their own in wind. This is a good reason for buying a lighter board - much better than a supposed "performance" advantage.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: robon on March 15, 2016, 07:39:12 AM
A 50% retail price drop on a Carbon board tells the story on depreciation and value.  That is why we buy at the end of the year - new demo or used.  You often can get a top flight board for a reasonable price - but you must be patient - and be in the right place at the right time.

In regards to speed - just add 10 and 20 lb weights to your board - then paddle at least 5 miles at race pace.  Extrapolate speed and distance times - and determine if lighter weight is beneficial to you.  As lightweight riders we feel every single pound - especially when putting max power down launching off waves - and when paddling 10 mi distances fast in the ocean. 

Lighter is better for us in near every way provided durability is there.  At 26.5 lbs and over - full Carbon has been 100% durable.  Our heaviest board is a glass I-beam M-14 which weighs a hefty 28 lbs in comparison.  Interestingly that relatively small 1-1/2 lb weight difference can easily be felt carrying long distances - and when lifting overhead.  So for many - when possible - Carbon is best purchased when discounted to maximize the value quotient.

I used to think the M14 was a mid to heavier weight board until I properly weighed it and realized it is pretty good in terms of weight - considering the 14ft Starboard Allstar (hybrid construction) and Glide and similar boards are about 14 to 15+ kg...no fun carrying their boards and they must feel sluggish on acceleration.

The SB Allstar Hybrid 14 X 27 is 5 pounds lighter than the GS Glide. For a board having 324 litres of volume and very little actual carbon in the construction, it's a decent weight. The JL M14 isn't as thick, and has less volume, so it makes sense that it should be lighter. It will be interesting to see what the new Sidewinders weigh in at in the signature construction.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 15, 2016, 09:36:59 AM
Here is an excellent speed test that Robert performed using weights on a board.  When I noted "extrapolate" I was referring to taking 10-20 lbs and dividing it down proportionately to the specific increase in board weight as Robert calculated.

As light weight riders any proportionate increase in body or board weight is much exaggerated.  When doing pull ups and muscle ups for instance - a 5 lb increase often means the difference between getting up and over the bar - vs not.   Relating to SUP speed tests we have done many tests ourselves as we have nice 5 and 8 mile test loops we time on throughout the year.  At race pace - especially when feeling tired towards the end of a loop - pushing it at a very high sustained VO2 % - we always want to pull a lighter vs heavier board.  Every pull is strenuous and tiring.  So extra board weight does have a significant impact - as most all speed conscious paddlers want to pull a very light carbon board.  Not many contenders paddle AST or glass.

As noted before - our speed and strength - is slow and weak compared to sponsored riders.  And the ones we have paddled with simply take off on us - semi planing in fact.  Really opens your eyes when you see what these semi-pros are capable of - and what their actual strength to weight ratios must be.  And when asked about the speed of Kai and Connor - they say those riders are way way faster than them.   :o

http://zenwaterman.blogspot.ca/2010/11/is-lighter-really-faster-sup-weight.html
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 15, 2016, 11:13:55 AM
Here are some of Robert's comments that make sense from our experience as well -

"If you knew that making your board just one pound lighter would have made you 0.2% faster would you still say that weight does not matter?

I think not.

Another thought:
The speed difference might seem very small in the controlled flat water test but in downwind racing it's all about catching and connecting bumps. That slightly faster acceleration can be the difference between making and missing a bump, which can compound the effect. If you race in downwinders you know that connecting one good bump train can put you 50 yards ahead (or behind if you miss it) of you competition, and it does not really matter if you are at the front or in the middle of the pack.
If you are not racing, or want a board to train on, save yourself a bundle and get a solid, less expensive board, but in racing, light weight is KEY"

Definitely on DW runs it is all about catching and connecting bumps.  That slightly faster acceleration that Robert and coldsup refer to does have a compound effect.  For instance - the power balance endurance and timing of sponsored riders is such that - in a mere matter of minutes they are basically gone from us.  It is really quite amazing to watch - and to learn - as these experts have it all figured out already.

At our age - we are just happy to be out there with these guys.   :)

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 15, 2016, 04:37:34 PM
Ok, let's take a different tack on this matter of board weight and performance. Here are a load of factors that will influence a racer's performance. Let me know which factors in this list matter less than having a board that is 10% heavier:

1. How much sleep he had the night before.
2. Effects of recent injury.
3. Quality of pre-race breakfast.
4. Quality of pre-race day nutrition.
5. Amount of time spent training.
6. Quality of technique tuition.
7. Speed of changing hands with paddle.
8. Match of paddle length to the conditions.
9. Quality of catch technique.
10. Quality of power phase technique.
11. Quality of paddle exit technique.
12. Quality of recovery technique.
13. Buoy turn ability.
14. Ability to track straight - many strokes per side.
15. Ability to choke down on paddle.
16. Ability to change cadence to suit the circumstances.
17. Ability to read bumps.
18. Ability to rail steer the board.
19. Ability to surf the board (where relevant).
20. Wearing the optimal clothing for the circumstances.
21. Having optimal hydration for the race.
22. Really wanting to win.
23. Having a positive attitude to the race.
24. Ability to draft.
25. Ability to sprint.
26. Ability to know when to sprint and when to rest.
27. Ability to assimilate course rules and directions.
28. Ability to get leash on and off under race conditions (if relevant).
29. Ability to warm up optimally before a race.
30. Flexibility.
31. Endurance.
32. Balance ability.
33. Design of board (eg. displacement vs planing).
34. Width of board.
35. Thickness of board.
36. Volume of board.
38. Flexibility of board.
39. Ease of carrying board (if eg. beach race).
40. Grip of board.
41. Speed feedback devices (eg. GPS).
42. Whether you emptied your bowels before the race.
43. Whether you emptied your bladder before the race.
44. Psychological factors that might cause distraction.
45. Grip of paddle (ie. slippery?).
46. Familiarity with the environment.
47. Familiarity with the conditions.
48. Weight of leash.
49. Weight of hydration unit.
50. Weight of undigested food.
51. Weight of undigested drink.
52. Weight of clothing.
52. Weight of devices (watch, GPS etc).
53. Weight of fin.
53. Design of fin.
54. Position of fin(s).
54. Amount of empty fin box.
55. Drainage of water from the deck.
56. Amount of nose rocker.
57. Amount of tail rocker.
58. Concaves/no concaves/bottom shape.
59. Rail shape.
60. Body fat ratio.

Etc etc etc...

Now, the top 1% of international paddlers may have so many of these factors so optimised that the difference in their performance between boards that are different by 3lbs might be able to be detected. Perhaps. But for the rest of us, the amount of variation in our race performances that are due to all the factors above - and no doubt many others I haven't mentioned - will swamp any attributable to paddling an AST vs. a carbon board. And it is variation in all these factors that make small differences in board weight so hard to quantify in terms of impact upon race performance.

So, is spending another 1500 dollars US on a carbon board (if you live in Europe, that's the price differential) going to be worth it, versus spending that money on a new paddle, or even better nutrition, or some technique tuition etc? Don't fool yourself.

Is having a board that is in theory 0.2% faster (taking Robert's question) worth 1500 US dollars more, when any of the 60 variables above might contribute as much if not more to your race performance? Maybe if you are Danny Ching with the bank balance of Richard Branson. For the rest of us, we'd be better off going through the list above and asking how optimised we are for those factors and spending our money on these things IMO.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on March 15, 2016, 04:59:30 PM
Right you are A10. Taking some notes from your list now :D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 15, 2016, 05:17:26 PM
Wow - amazing list.

We have not bought a Carbon board at full price because its value is generally inflated and we have access to a lot of good deals.  Plus they depreciate fast.  Ex. We bought our Carbon SB Touring that listed for around $3400 - for about $1500 demo.  That was reasonable - and made sense for a fantastic Carbon touring board.  But my point is simple - buy that light Carbon board at a discount vs paying full price.  Since a lighter board is better - as long as the durability is there.

So yes as always - it really comes down to the paddler - as we have been trying to note.  Power balance endurance and timing - that is what counts and what most should be working on if they want faster times.  That is why those experts pull away from us average Joe's.  One rider was so competent he used his very old beat up Bark Expedition - and still pulled from us on our very pricey and shiny DW specific boards. 

So rider skill and ability etc - always trumps the board.  ;)
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: yugi on March 16, 2016, 03:15:59 AM
I've got #52 down pat! Can't get lighter than zero.

Oh wait, there's 2 of them. OK, my trunks are as light as one can get, mainly so they dry quicker.

Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on March 16, 2016, 05:30:20 AM
I've got #52 down pat! Can't get lighter than zero.

Oh wait, there's 2 of them. OK, my trunks are as light as one can get, mainly so they dry quicker.

Hmm, I expected #54 (Amount of empty fin box ) to be first on your list ;)
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Area 10 on March 16, 2016, 07:43:31 AM
I've got #52 down pat! Can't get lighter than zero.

Oh wait, there's 2 of them. OK, my trunks are as light as one can get, mainly so they dry quicker.

Hmm, I expected #54 (Amount of empty fin box ) to be first on your list ;)
Haha! I mentioned this because it has been mooted often on the forums as a potential source of drag. It has even been used as an argument for reducing the fin box size by Starboard, and increasing fin base length by fin retailers. Futures Fins sell blanks to fill empty side bite boxes. And actually, if you look at video of the underside of a board when it is being paddled, it isn't wildly implausible that it does cause significant drag. Whether it could be measured in real world situations is another matter, however.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: burchas on March 16, 2016, 08:10:56 AM
I've got #52 down pat! Can't get lighter than zero.

Oh wait, there's 2 of them. OK, my trunks are as light as one can get, mainly so they dry quicker.

Hmm, I expected #54 (Amount of empty fin box ) to be first on your list ;)
Haha! I mentioned this because it has been mooted often on the forums as a potential source of drag. It has even been used as an argument for reducing the fin box size by Starboard, and increasing fin base length by fin retailers. Futures Fins sell blanks to fill empty side bite boxes. And actually, if you look at video of the underside of a board when it is being paddled, it isn't wildly implausible that it does cause significant drag. Whether it could be measured in real world situations is another matter, however.

Good catch A10 8) that's exactly the thread I was referring to.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 16, 2016, 08:51:43 AM
I've got #52 down pat! Can't get lighter than zero.

Oh wait, there's 2 of them. OK, my trunks are as light as one can get, mainly so they dry quicker.

Hmm, I expected #54 (Amount of empty fin box ) to be first on your list ;)
Haha! I mentioned this because it has been mooted often on the forums as a potential source of drag. It has even been used as an argument for reducing the fin box size by Starboard, and increasing fin base length by fin retailers. Futures Fins sell blanks to fill empty side bite boxes. And actually, if you look at video of the underside of a board when it is being paddled, it isn't wildly implausible that it does cause significant drag. Whether it could be measured in real world situations is another matter, however.

Good catch A10 8) that's exactly the thread I was referring to.

Hahahaha!!!   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 17, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
The All Star looks pretty fun DW in breeze and fine surfing beach waves.  The 14x25" would probably be a fantastic DB and DW ride whether in Hybrid - or better for us - Carbon Sandwich if the price was right. 

Based on this review vid - the boof is apparently anti-pearling - so that would make the board very rider friendly for the average Joe.  On our M-14 and especially Bullet 14V2 - you must get back fast otherwise half the board will pearl in big steep waves.  The margin for error looks to be much less for the All Star - and the board planes and turns nicely with the trip concaves.  Possibly you can catch even more rides - staying more forward - more of the time.  The benefit of the low profile surf nose however - is no issues with side wind and waves blowing you off course.  So always compromises. 

For many - would expect the 27" and 28" in Hybrid to be quite popular - and faster than the Bullet and M-14 in flatter waters.  But am still waiting for demo season - so reserving judgement until we can paddle a 25" firsthand.  Does look pretty fun on a DW though.   :)

http://youtu.be/8D-GwyqsIlk

http://youtu.be/mSu6VrpKo5w

http://youtu.be/DnNyY70TlGE
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 17, 2016, 09:55:32 PM
"The margin for error looks to be much less for the All Star" - oops meant to type "more".   :)
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Muskoka SUP on March 18, 2016, 05:22:08 AM
Eagle: the "boof" is not so good for short period steep backed waves, in fact, it's very much a spoiler.  I had a SB Coast Runner, it was a great open water touring board that at first blush, downwinded great, it would pick up any runner or bump, even in downbreezing winds.. But the boof was a turn-off.  Kinda like skiing or snowboarding on a late spring day on groomers - imagine warping out some super-g turns on shaded icy corn, only to hit a patch of sun baked slush.. But worse. Insta-superman to face plant.  Now I realize that the last few iterations of the AllStar have a much finer nose, but looking at this newest version is like looking at the Coast Runner.  (At least I see it that way, YMMV). 
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 18, 2016, 09:57:22 AM
Valid point Muskoka - my runs with the Ace boof upwind and DW confirm a face plant experience if you stay too far forward.  So getting the trim right is still vital to avoid a big speed drop.  With the Bullet and M-14 our trim is such that the nose is just on the verge of pearling for max speed - any deeper pearling creates a big drag effect - even with a pointy surf nose.  If the All Star boof can flex and has a bit more float - it may allow a wider margin of error for the Average Joe that generally does not walk the board much.  But yeah - any board is pretty hard to handle in steep backed waves.  What we find works ok is to slow down to the speed of the wave - and make sure the trim is right.

Here - very skilled Clément demonstrates deft footwork and fantastic balance and timing on a very very tippy pintail Ace.  Notice how little the Ace boof pearls and how little water sprays over the nose of the board.  Shifting backwards and forwards and to the sides - seems to be the key to maintaining proper trim on those waves.

http://youtu.be/HbdKlEpK4rg
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: coldsup on March 18, 2016, 12:21:08 PM
That chap Clement is a wee whippet with great balance and skill.....he's good!

Eagle.....you need to get an Allstar and let me know how it gives compared to the M14. I reckon the Allstar....maybe  a 27 wide would be great DB, racing and fitness board for an average punter like me. It is still numerous 1 on my list just now.

Still, the more I get on the M14 the more I like it.....
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 18, 2016, 01:05:20 PM
Haha - he actually looks to be about my size.

Was thinking about calling up the distributor today - but am going to wait until a proper demo day.  Will see if he has a 25" he can bring along.  Since these Carbon Sandwich boards are so expensive and have such a limited demand - he may not.  But in talking to one of the sponsored riders - we should be able to arrange something at some point.  He told me last year if I wanted to test the new Sprint at any time - to just give them a call.

And yes - just keep that M-14 nose on the verge of pearling - and you will catch wave and wave.  Just wait until you get that board in some decent breeze and you start full-on planing.  You will grin ear to ear.  Cheers mate.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: coldsup on March 18, 2016, 01:50:42 PM
Haha - he actually looks to be about my size.

Was thinking about calling up the distributor today - but am going to wait until a proper demo day.  Will see if he has a 25" he can bring along.  Since these Carbon Sandwich boards are so expensive and have such a limited demand - he may not.  But in talking to one of the sponsored riders - we should be able to arrange something at some point.  He told me last year if I wanted to test the new Sprint at any time - to just give them a call.

And yes - just keep that M-14 nose on the verge of pearling - and you will catch wave and wave.  Just wait until you get that board in some decent breeze and you start full-on planing.  You will grin ear to ear.  Cheers mate.


Think we are now itching for a decent breeze now....it has been just too little or storm force or offshore! Last weekend started out promising but after 4 miles totally died.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 18, 2016, 02:34:01 PM
Eagle.....you need to get an Allstar and let me know how it gives compared to the M14. I reckon the Allstar....maybe  a 27 wide would be great DB, racing and fitness board for an average punter like me. It is still numerous 1 on my list just now.

My guess would be that the All Star 27" would be a nice board for your purposes.  The 26" Bark Vapor as well.  Either of those boards would be quicker than the M-14 when the breeze drops.  If the price is good - those may be good options - since your opportunities to demo boards seems to be quite limited.

Since we already have a 27.25" Bullet - we are looking for something that accelerates faster in DB conditions.  If we end up with a 25" All Star - that might be perfect.  But the stars need to align for that.  We just refuse to pay top $ for any Carbon board - and have always just used what we have until the right deal came along.

Last year we were very close to buying that demo 17.4 Bullet DCC - as it was ear-marked for us - but then the new version with FAST was announced.  So we are always looking for the deal on a nice carbon board.  But when we think about it - over 4 boards at time may be getting a bit much - since it is tough to justify any board you use only sporadically.

Now about the wind forecast - just be ready - as it will surely pick up soon.  Best.  :)
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Muskoka SUP on March 18, 2016, 06:45:09 PM
Good approach Eagle.  There's always going to be someone chasing the latest and greatest, as well as early adopters, so best to sit back and use what you have until opportunity knocks..   BTW, you may have a bit more time to save your $ for a Bullet 17, as there's been a delay in getting the FAST system into production..(not an abrupt halt, but more of a behind schedule).  Just an FYI.
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Eagle on March 20, 2016, 06:58:53 PM
Good approach Eagle.  There's always going to be someone chasing the latest and greatest, as well as early adopters, so best to sit back and use what you have until opportunity knocks..   BTW, you may have a bit more time to save your $ for a Bullet 17, as there's been a delay in getting the FAST system into production..(not an abrupt halt, but more of a behind schedule).  Just an FYI.

Thanks for that inside track Muskoka.  Will be interesting to see how the FAST compares to the A.S.S.  Actually offered to buy that demo 17.4 for a set price about a week before the announcement - but the Dealer hedged and wanted to wait until the season was over before agreeing.  So as it worked out - was not obliged to go through with the deal.  You know what they say - "A bird in the hand ..."

Not checked - but the 17.4 may still be for sale as it probably is the only one in the area.  Most all UL SIC are the F-16 around here.  Understand that you have a new 17.4 lined up and have been waiting.  Probably is better they get the FAST sorted before shipping out boards.  Was told by the dealer last year they were working out the bugs with the new rods - even back then.

In any event - with the 17.4 you will love the feel of control and dominance over the wind and waves.  Has kind of a regal feel - where all the commotion around you subsides.  Just pummels anything in front of it - and with steering - saves a ton of paddle strokes angling across waves.  Very easy to stay in the power band and is all about timing and finesse.  For us as light weight paddlers - we do not have the power to man-handle the board like a 14 - but was able to get the board to plane a couple of times.

Seems optimized for long distance excursions in the open open vs short steep chop we often get round here.  It can definitely handle small steep waves - but the F-16 nose rocker seems better suited for that.  We have been using our trusty heavily rockered M-14 - and that so far - has worked a charm.  Jeremy recommends the F-16 for our waters up in Squamish.  Cheers.   :)
Title: Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
Post by: Muskoka SUP on March 21, 2016, 03:52:10 AM
Thanks for the affirmation, Eagle.  Although I agree that the F16 would be a better turn-key downwind unlimited for here too, I decided to go with the Bullet so as to be able to step off of the plane in Maui and onto a Bullet without a learning curve.  I paddled one there, and in Maui conditions one does not need any extra beat -down.

There's also been lots of positive feedback from Aus, specifically Brisbane, on the suitability of 17' unlimiteds for shorter period downwinding.  Of course, some of the Melbourne bunch use them too in the short period lake like Phillip Bay. 

As is said, nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Besides, there's a couple of 12-6's and a 14 in our quiver already for everyday paddling.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal